Two professors posted this to the Journal of Radical Librarianship:
In this article, we critique the phenomenon of Little Free Libraries® (LFL®), the non-profit organization dedicated to sharing books with one’s neighbours. Through our engagement with the discourses, narratives and geographies of the LFL® movement, we argue that the organization represents the corporatization of literary philanthropy, and is an active participant in the civic crowdfunding activities of the non-profit industrial complex. The visible positioning of these book exchanges, particularly on private property in gentrified urban landscapes, offers a materialization of these neoliberal politics at street level. Drawing primarily upon one of the author’s experiences as an LFL® steward, as well as critical discourse and GIS analysis, we offer constructive critiques of the organization and their mission, and suggest that the principles of community-led library practice can be more effectively employed to harness the enthusiasm of these self-described “literacy warriors.”
I think "The visible positioning of these book exchanges, particularly on private property in gentrified urban landscapes, offers a materialization of these neoliberal politics at street level" is the single most ridiculous sentence I have read this year.
I think "The visible positioning of these book exchanges, particularly on private property in gentrified urban landscapes, offers a materialization of these neoliberal politics at street level" is the single most ridiculous sentence I have read this year.
ReplyDeleteLet's humor their position.
Flip it around - suppose there were Nazis putting out books like Mein Kampf and similar insane, hate filled screeds. Would you or I or the "average person" respond similarly? Something like... "The visible positioning of these Nazi book exchanges, particularly on private property in working class neighborhoods, offers a materialization of these Fascist politics at street level."
I think... yeah, to be quite honest, I know ~I~ wouldn't be very happy about Nazis putting out Fascist books, and I would condemn it on moral and civic grounds as promoting dangerous and evil ideas. (With the caveat that, yeah, legally, there's nothing I can do about it, since it's private property.)
So I can easily see how someone who, rather than being disgusted and alarmed by Nazi politics, instead is offended by neoliberal ones, would arrive at this particular viewpoint and response. It's not the chain of logic itself that is ridiculous to me, but the extreme reaction against neoliberal politics that leaves me scratching my head. And that's ultimately the subjectivity of political view, unfortunately.
Really, the sentence itself isn't all that ridiculous - it's just shocking to those of us who don't see neoliberalism as a force of evil. But for those who do see it that way, it's a perfectly sensible statement that is wholly accurate from their point of view.
We also have to consider the specific viewpoint and values of the speakers. These are people commenting on the Journal of Radical Librarianship, so they are presumably librarians - and most dedicated librarians believe in public libraries that are held to high standards of impartiality, not private ones pushing select agendas. They aren't really wrong that a private or corporate library system is liable to be politically biased in the materials it chooses to promote. Within that context, their complaint is pretty darn valid.
Personally, I can see their point, even if I don't agree with it specifically. Libraries are generally a good thing, but they are not unqualified in their goodness. Sometimes, in certain contexts, certain kinds of libraries can effectively be bad, or at least problematic. Just because I don't share their concern about this particular kind of library doesn't mean the nature of their concern is absurd.
@Verloren:
ReplyDeleteThe content of the LFLs is children's books, mass market paperbacks, pabulum self-help books, etc. Probably the occasional Bible or relighious tract. It's not textbooks or "neoliberal" propaganda. It's stuff for folks to read. And it's the job of the LFL "stewards" to police the boxes' contents to weed out the "neoliberal" and the fascist stuff. And porn.
Fern Michaels and Tom Clancy and David McCullough and Little House on the Prairie and Robert Heinlein are not "neoliberals." (Well, I'm not sure I should include Heinlein on that list!)
Are some of the books that someone pops into the local LFL propaganda? Possibly-- but since the books are not placed there by LFL "stewards," your argument is absurd on its face.
The biggest problem with LFLs isn't "neoliberal" propaganda. It's vandalism-- the glass doors protecting the books inside the library boxes are smashed on a regular basis in some areas.
"Sometimes, in certain contexts, certain kinds of libraries can effectively be bad, or at least problematic."
ReplyDeleteHow can a library be bad?
Runner-up for most ridiculous phrase: "non-profit industrial complex".
What is most surprising to me is there is a Journal of Radical Librarianship and a field of study called Radical Librarianship. Looking at the subject matter the field covers ("About" section of journal), I'd guess it's very woke. Just a matter of time before there is a newsletter named "The Subversive Librarian."
ReplyDeleteThese neoliberal politics are:
ReplyDelete….we argue that the organization represents the corporatization of literary philanthropy, and is an active participant in the civic crowdfunding activities of the non-profit industrial complex.….
A pity I dont understant the meaning of the words “corporatization”, “literary philanthropy”, “civic crowdfunding” and “non-profit industrial complex”
Maybe I get time to read the original article if there is free access.